Thank you to all the citizens who wrote, called, and testified at the hearing on the Hayden Island Plan.

Here are the amendments I proposed to clarify the issue of a potential bridge on West Hayden Island:

The paragraph on page 14 accurately reflects my understanding of the community consensus that a potential bridge to West Hayden Island will be considered in that planning process and is not an approved proposal of the Hayden Island Plan. I heard consensus that this language should prevail and be consistent throughout the Plan.

Page 9, first bullet, first sub-bullet states, "Provide direct access to and from Hayden Island without getting on the Interstate." This is not clear. From the hearing on 6/18, I understand the majority of the community desires a second bridge, in addition to the proposed CRC design with add-drop lanes that don't merge with through traffic,but not necessarily on West Hayden Island.

Same bullet on Page 9, second sub-bullet states, "Build a West Hayden Island bridge at the appropriate time". Either eliminate this sub-bullet, or change to "Consider building a West Hayden Island bridge if found appropriate in the West Hayden Island Planning process."

Add, "If not, consider building an arterial bridge at other locations."

Page 35, second bullet under Leadership, currently states, "Work with the Port of Portland to explore joint use of new bridge built to serve potential development on West Hayden Island".

Change to "Work with stakeholders including Hayden Island Neighborhood Network, river community groups, environmental and business interests, and the Port of Portland, to explore transportation connections to potential development on West Hayden Island".

I also requested:

Add the Office of Healthy Working Rivers to the list of Accountability under Leadership in all three Implementation Actions on pages 34 and 35.

Commissioner Leonard plans to introduce amendments to address the issues of CG or CN zoning for six properties, to maintain drive-through rights.

I want to see improved language regarding funding parks improvements and providing a community gathering place in an area away from the freeway noise.

Thank you to Hayden Island residents and business owners, and all involved, for producing such a good plan requiring only tweaks.

You wrote:"Page 9, first bullet, first sub-bullet states, "Provide direct access to and from Hayden Island without getting on the Interstate." This is not clear. From the hearing on 6/18, I understand the majority of the community desires a second bridge, in addition to the proposed CRC design with add-drop lanes that don't merge with through traffic,but not necessarily on West Hayden Island."

Helzer comments:The majority of the community does not want a second bridge to anywhere "in addition to the proposed CRC design with add-drop lanes that don't merge with through traffic . . . " The CRC design adequately addresses these access concerns of islanders, in spite of the HINooN chair's personal choice not to accurately reflect the community's sentiment on this issue, but represents the Port's interests, instead. (Go figure.)

You wrote: "Same bullet on Page 9, second sub-bullet states, 'Build a West Hayden Island bridge at the appropriate time.' Either eliminate this sub-bullet, or change to "Consider building a West Hayden Island bridge if found appropriate in the West Hayden Island Planning process."

Add, "If not, consider building an arterial bridge at other locations."

Helzer comments:First, only the Port of Portland has lobbied for such a bridge, presuming massive marine industrial development of West Hayden Island to be supported by such as bridge. There is no evidence such a facility is an economic necessity now or in the near future, nor is there any evidence, if built, it will be sustainable if not profitable for the State of Oregon.

Second, preliminary cost estimates by bridge construction experts begin at $100 million (not paid for by the Port), with major federal environmental agency opposition, and decades of legal actions by national enviromental advocates. In addition, the cost to the City, as required by state law, to provide municipal services to WHI is above and beyond what the City is now able to provide to those areas already annexed into the City.

Third, the City has taken great care in crafting a process to involve WHI stakeholders to consider whether or not development of WHI should even be considered. To include any language in the HIP that even suggests development of WHI is "potential," pre-supposes the conclusions of the West Hayden Island Community Working Group (WHICWG), undercuts Council's work, and re-enflames current more calm and cooperative members.

Therefore, please consider the elimination of any language about WHI, bridges to there, potential WHI development by the Port, etc. Such language is not needed in any fashion, achieves nothing positive, and its mention only adds negative energy to a very touchy issue already under careful discussion by another group which is planning to deliver its report to City Council early next year.

You wrote:"Page 35, second bullet under Leadership, currently states, 'Work with the Port of Portland to explore joint use of new bridge built to serve potential development on West Hayden Island.'

Change to 'Work with stakeholders including Hayden Island Neighborhood Network, river community groups, environmental and business interests, and the Port of Portland, to explore transportation connections to potential development on West Hayden Island.'"

Helzer comments:Again, on Page 35, please drop all mention of the Port, HINooN, West Hayden Island, transportation, potential developoment, and anything else that doen't pertain directly to the focus of the Hayden Island Plan, and that is all aspects of the future of the Hayden Island east of the north-south Burlington Northern railroad tracks that bisect the island.

If you absolutely must say something about WHI, note that Council has set up the WHICWG to consider whether or not development of any portion of WHI is possible, and leave it at that. This seems the most accurate and complete at this time, is politically correct, and does not upset the work in progress by the working group Council has set up.

The only fall out about this for Council may be from the Port of Portland, and their unsubstantiated claims of "Portland's greater economic development, family wage jobs for Portlanders, and environmental sensitivity" as they create a massive marine industrial development complex on West Hayden Island.

Thank you for your consideration of these critically important amendments to the Hayden Island Plan.

Respectfully,

Timme A. Helzer

Chair of the Original Hayden Island Comprehensive Neighborhood PlanMember of the Hayden Island Plan Community Steering GroupMember of Hayden Island Neighborhood NetworkMember of the West Hayden Island Community Working GroupFounder and Chair of Friends of West Hayden Island

Thanks for your comments. Tomorrow's hearing will allow public testimony, and I will be interested to hear if others share your concerns. The amendments being proposed seem to me to summarize the input I've heard so far, from all sides.

It's important to understand the elements in a Neighborhood Plan don't necessarily get implemented verbatim. Lots of factors can intervene, and plans are intended to be somewhat dynamic - except for the zoning and Comprehensive Plan Map changes. This process considered talking only about East Hayden Island, and I heard the majority wanted West Hayden Island mentioned but clearly separate and subject to a new planning process. I recognize many people want no development on WHI. I also heard others interested in considering it. That's what I read the Hayden Island Plan now says.

Posted by: Timme Helzer - August 12, 2009 04:54 AM

Thank you, Commissioner Fritz, for your consideration of our concerns regarding deletion of any mention of West Hayden Island in the Hayden Island Plan.

In the last Council hearing on this subject, Mayor Adams said WHI will not be addressed in the HIP. Respecting the concerns of others who want a broader discussion of the WHI issue in the HIP, I request that a compromise amendment be offered that includes the following language:

"Recognizing the many issues surrounding the future of West Hayden Island, Council has set up the West Hayden Island Community Working Group (WHICWG) for stakeholders to consider whether or not development of any portion of WHI is possible, and will entertain that group's recommendations in future Council's discussions about that portion of Hayden Island."

The following language was adopted last week as an amendment in response to your testimony:

"Work with stakeholders including Hayden Island Neighborhood Association, river community groups, environmental and business groups and the Port of Portland, to plan for the future of West Hayden Island. The Hayden Island Plan makes no judgment about the future of West Hayden Island."

I believe this covers your concern and clarifies that the Hayden Island Plan does not determine the future of WHI.

Posted by: Amanda Fritz - August 23, 2009 12:05 PM

P.S. The Bureau of Plannng and Sustainability corrected the name of the Neighborhood Association, Hayden Island Neighborhood Network.